
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 224 (Monday, November 21, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 83189-83190]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27847]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0382; FRL-9955-21-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT15


Revisions to Procedure 2--Quality Assurance Requirements for 
Particulate Matter Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary 
Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
revisions to a procedure in the New Source Performance Standards 
(NSPS). The procedure provides the ongoing quality assurance/quality 
control (QA/QC) procedures for assessing the acceptability of 
particulate matter (PM) continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). 
The procedure explains the criteria for passing an annual response 
correlation audit (RCA) and the criteria for passing an annual relative 
response audit (RRA). The procedure currently contains a requirement 
that the annual QA/QC test results for affected facilities must fall 
within the same response range as was used to develop the existing PM 
CEMS correlation curve. As a result, some facilities are unable to meet 
the criteria for passing their annual QA/QC test simply because their 
emissions are now lower than the range previously set during 
correlation testing. We are proposing to modify the procedure to allow 
facilities to extend their PM CEMS correlation regression line to the 
lowest PM CEMS response obtained during the RCA or RRA, when these PM 
CEMS responses are less than the lowest response used to develop the 
existing correlation curve. We also propose to correct a typographical 
error in the procedure.

DATES: Written comments must be received by December 21, 2016.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA by December 1, 2016 
requesting to speak at a public hearing on this action, the EPA will 
consider holding a public hearing on December 21, 2016 at the EPA 
facility in Research Triangle Park. Please check the EPA's Web page at 
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/emc/proposed.html on December 12, 2016 for the 
announcement of whether a hearing will be held. To request a public 
hearing and present oral testimony at the hearing, please contact on or 
before December 1, 2016, the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. If a hearing is held, the 
hearing schedule, including the list of speakers, will be posted on the 
EPA's Web page at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/emc/proposed.html.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0382, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any 
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, Cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on

[[Page 83190]]

making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kimberly Garnett, U.S. EPA, Office 
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division, 
Measurement Technology Group (E143-02), Research Triangle Park, NC 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1158; fax number: (919) 541- 0516; 
email address: garnett.kim@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 
proposing revisions to a procedure in the New Source Performance 
Standards (NSPS). We also propose to correct a typographical error in 
the introduction to Paragraph (6) of section 10.4 of Procedure 2. 
Without this revision, paragraph (6)(iii) would remain unused in 
Procedure 2. This typographical correction is necessary to fulfill the 
intent of Procedure 2, section 10.4(6), when promulgated. See 69 FR 
1786.

I. Why is the EPA issuing this proposed rule?

    The EPA proposes a revision to Procedure 2, sections 10.4(5)and 
(6), to allow facilities that have reduced their emissions since 
completing their PM CEMS correlation testing to extend their 
correlation regression line to the point corresponding to the lowest PM 
CEMS response obtained during the RCA or RRA. This extended correlation 
regression line will be used to determine if results of this RCA or RRA 
meet the criteria specified in Section 10.4, paragraphs (5) and (6) of 
Procedure 2, respectively. This change will ensure that facilities that 
have reduced their emissions since completing their correlation testing 
will no longer be penalized because their lower emissions fall outside 
their initial response range. This action also proposes to correct a 
typographical error in the introduction to section 10.4, paragraph (6) 
of Procedure 2. Paragraph (6), which originally read, ``To pass an RRA, 
you must meet the criteria specified in paragraphs (6)(i) and (ii) . . 
.'', is being corrected to read: ``To pass an RRA, you must meet the 
criteria specified in paragraphs (6)(i) through (iii) . . .'' Without 
this revision, paragraph (6)(iii) would remain unused in Procedure 2. 
This typographical correction is necessary to fulfill the intent of 
Procedure 2, section 10.4(6), when promulgated in 69 FR 1786. We have 
published a direct final rule approving the revisions to Procedure 2 in 
the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register 
publication because we view this as a non-controversial action and 
anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this 
action in the preamble of the direct final rule.
    If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action 
on this proposed rule. If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will 
publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the 
public that the direct final rule will not take effect. In that case, 
we would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based 
on this proposed rule.
    We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this 
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. 
For further information about commenting on this rule, please see the 
information provided in the ADDRESSES section of this document.
    The regulatory text for the proposal is identical to that for the 
direct final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of 
this Federal Register publication. For further supplementary 
information, the detailed rationale for the proposal and the regulatory 
revisions, see the direct final rule published in a separate part of 
this Federal Register publication.

II. Does this action apply to me?

    The entities potentially affected by this rule include any facility 
that is required to install and operate a PM CEMS under any provision 
of title 40 of the CFR. If you have any questions regarding the 
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person 
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Continuous emission monitoring systems, 
Particulate matter, Procedures.

    Dated: November 8, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-27847 Filed 11-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


